The background for the understanding of this verse is Deut 24.1-4. There the rule is laid down that a divorced woman who has remarried may not under any circumstances (even if her second husband is dead) be allowed to remarry her first husband. The reasoning behind this is that the woman would now be considered “unclean” through sexual contact with a second husband. To allow such a reunion would greatly displease the LORD and simultaneously bring defilement upon the whole nation. Thus the comparison becomes obvious: a twice married woman cannot under any conditions return to her first husband. But Israel’s situation is even worse; the nation has carried on like a prostitute with many lovers, and so the LORD cannot be expected to allow the nation to return to him.
As the footnote in Revised Standard Version indicates, If represents the text of two ancient translations; the Hebrew text has “Saying, If.” The shorter text is also followed by New Jerusalem Bible, Revised English Bible, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, and New International Version. Hebrew Old Testament Text Project suggests two possible ways of explaining the longer text: (1) it introduces either a general principle or a proverbial saying or a legal statement, and so may be rendered “It is said.” Apparently this is the basis for La Bible Pléiade “One says.” (2) It may depend upon 2.37, with the meaning “the LORD has rejected those you trust in … he says….” Good News Translation, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, and Luther 1984 follow this interpretation.
If a man divorces: The concept of divorce is known in all societies, although it is practiced more in some than in others. Translators should use whatever expression in their language would be natural for this. Notice that the cultural image is male centered; that is, it is the man who marries, the man who divorces, and a woman can only become someone’s wife. Good News Translation has tried to retain that cultural feature, but in other languages it will be less easily done. Although in this verse it speaks of the man divorcing the woman, some languages have a way only of referring to a couple divorcing; for example, “If a husband and wife divorce.” But this expression could still be used since the verse goes on to make it clear that the issue is of the wife first remarrying and then later coming back to the first husband.
Goes from him is rendered “leaves him” by Good News Translation. In some languages the expression for “divorce” would include that element, making it unnecessary to put it into words; that is, translators might say “If a man divorces his wife and she subsequently goes and marries another man….” But again, the male bias is seen in the wording becomes another man’s wife, and translators should try to retain that bias if they can, possibly with “and another man marries her.”
Will he return to her? translates the Hebrew, which may also be taken to mean “may he take her back again?” (Luther 1984). The Septuagint has “will/can she come back to him?” Some scholars feel that the Septuagint must be a translation of the original text, on the grounds that it reflects more accurately the biblical imagery of divorce and remarriage. On the other hand, it is quite possible that the Septuagint represents an attempt to make the text conform to the biblical pattern. Inasmuch as the Hebrew may be understood in the sense of Luther 1984, there is no need to follow the less difficult Septuagint rendering. Both Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation are rather burdensome in the way that they have translated the first half of the text. Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch is much more efficient: “If a man has divorced his wife and she has become the wife of another, then he may not later take her back again as his wife.” The text puts the statement in the form of a question, and some have done that to good effect with “Can he [or, the first husband] possibly take her back [as his wife] again?” The answer is understood as “No!” which is actually supplied by Bible en français courant. But an affirmation is good too: “he will certainly not take her back again [as his wife].”
In place of that land the Septuagint has “that woman,” which is followed by Revised English Bible. But in Greek the words “land” and “woman” are very similar in spelling, and it is easy to see how “that woman” may be the result of a scribal error. In addition it is easier to see why a scribe would have changed from “that land” to “that woman” than the other way around. Finally, this is a natural place for a transition, and that land links nicely with “You have polluted the land” in the next verse.
Good News Translation transforms the difficult negative rhetorical question Would not that land be greatly polluted? to a statement: “This would completely defile the land.”
Polluted or “defiled” is often a difficult concept. It refers to something being ritually or ceremonially impure, desecrated, possibly not fit for the service of God or for God to dwell in. In some languages it is enough to follow the text and simply to refer to the land being defiled or soiled, and readers would understand in what sense it was so. In others, something like “unfit for my [God’s] service” would be necessary.
You have played the harlot with many lovers; and would you return to me?: This is restructured in a more natural fashion in Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, “But you have given yourself to countless lovers and will you come back to me?” Good News Translation again drops the question form: “But, Israel, you have had many lovers, and now you want to return to me!” Whether translators render this as a question or a statement, the important thing to make clear is that God is not asking how Israel might want to come back to him after having so many lovers, but rather that he could not (or should not) possibly consider accepting them back after they have defiled themselves in such a way. For harlot see 2.20; for lovers see 2.33.
Says the LORD: See 1.8.
Quoted with permission from Newman, Barclay M. and Stine, Philip C. A Handbook on Jeremiah. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2003. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .